W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: Comments on the new RDF Concepts and ADM Draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 15:59:13 +0100
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-id: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDCEKMCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>



-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
Sent: 18 November 2002 15:49
To: massimo@w3.org
Subject: Re: Comments on the new RDF Concepts and ADM Draft



Hi Massimo

There is a new version out:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-rdf-concepts-20021108/

I believed I have addressed your editorial comments on the abstract syntax.

Thanks, they have been useful.

The section on the abstract syntax has been restructured and has substantial
changes.
The intent is that the new words present an RDF graph largely isomorphic to
the old ones, but in words which people like yourself will find clearer.

"tidy" has gone - although the graph still is tidy
"XMLLiteral" has become a datatype.

Massimo wrote:
[[
You need to
make the ADM more fine-grained, and extend their ADM representations
with a flag or so, to make these two sets disjoint
]]
We are now being a bit vague as to whether an untyped literal without a lang
tag is or is not an xsd:string.

Massimo wrote:
[[
So, suggestion: just define the RDF graph in its shortest and simplest way:

: B is an infinite set disjoint from (RDF-Lits U URI-refs)
: An RDF-triple belongs to ((URI-refs U B),URI-refs,(URI-refs U B U
RDF-Lits))
: An RDF Graph is a set of RDF-triples.

(note: I'd even say a *finite* set of RDF-triples, but if nobody else cares,
I'm fine with the more general, "non-always-computable" def).
]]
Yes, that's what we've done - (no mention of the set B though, maybe it
would be cleaner with an explicit definition).

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 18 November 2002 10:00:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT